To Amend Certain Concordia University System Bylaws

B. To Provide Clarity to Bylaws Governing Concordia University System Faculty Policies and Dispute Resolution

Rationale

The 2013 Res. 5-06A “To Revise Bylaw 3.10.5.6 re College and University Faculties” removed much of the content of Bylaws 3.10.5.6ff as being no longer relevant at the Synod level, thereby to allow boards of regents to set their own policies governing faculty and academic matters.

Res. 5-06A replaced the deleted bylaw paragraphs with new paragraphs requiring each educational institution to state policies and procedures related to faculty matters (3.10.5.6.1), to state terms and conditions of employment and limitations on academic freedom in appointment documents (3.10.5.6.2), and to provide a formal procedure for carrying out performance reviews on a regular basis (3.10.5.6.3).

Res. 5-06A also detailed proper causes for termination of faculty employment (3.10.5.6.4), retained bylaw language regarding consequences of the removal of faculty members from the roster of the Synod (3.10.5.6.4.1), and added a bylaw requiring CUS dispute resolution guidelines for use by faculty members who wish to challenge a termination decision (3.10.5.6.4.2).

This process of removing former Bylaws 3.10.5.6ff resulted in newly adopted bylaws that are less than clear in their expectations for dispute resolution related to faculty employment and academic matters. In addition, Res. 5-06A also removed the former Bylaw 3.10.5.6.9 governing the handling of complaints against academic institutions’ faculty or administration.

The following proposed bylaw amendments will clarify the wording of the replacement 1 bylaw paragraphs.

Proposed Action

Therefore be it

Resolved, That Bylaw 3.6.6.1 be revised and new Bylaw 3.6.6.7 governing Concordia University System policy administration and dispute resolution be adopted as follows:

PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING

See resolution for proposed wording

and be it further

Resolved, That Bylaws 3.10.5.6ff governing Concordia University System faculties administration be amended as follows:

Enter Your Comment or Opinion

EXPLANATION OF SCORING MECHANISM

The scores for each Resolution are an attempt to predict which resolutions are likely to attract the most attention at the upcoming convention.

SCORE RANGE: 1-5, where 1 = low and 5 = high

SCORING CATEGORIES
L = Likelihood of adoption. For example, Commendation Resolutions are usually easy to pass, so would score 5.
S = Strengthens Doctrine & Practice. Is the Resolution faithful to Scripture and our Confessions? Does it entrench them?
F = Strengthens Walking in Fellowship. Does the Resolution enhance Synodical values?
P = Synod Priority. What is the priority of the Resolution for the Synod, especially with reference to S&F above?
X = Executable. Does the Resolution have a realistic goal? Can it be achieved with measurable results?

SCORE
The final score is based on weightings (see below). A low score means the Resolution is likely a pro-forma matter. A high value means it is likely to be contested.